This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/apr/22/animal-rights-ban-political-advertising
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Animal rights group fails to overturn ban on political advertising | Animal rights group fails to overturn ban on political advertising |
| (5 months later) | |
| An animal rights campaign group has failed to overturn the UK's ban on US-style political advertising on radio and television. | An animal rights campaign group has failed to overturn the UK's ban on US-style political advertising on radio and television. |
| By a narrow majority decision, judges at the European court of human rights in Strasbourg have ruled that preventing the broadcast of a commercial – showing a girl in chains in a chimpanzee's cage – did not violate freedom of expression. | By a narrow majority decision, judges at the European court of human rights in Strasbourg have ruled that preventing the broadcast of a commercial – showing a girl in chains in a chimpanzee's cage – did not violate freedom of expression. |
| The case was brought by Animal Defenders International (ADI) who wanted to air an advert in 2005 entitled My Mate's a Primate. It was directed against the keeping and exhibition of primates in zoos and circuses and their use in television advertising. | The case was brought by Animal Defenders International (ADI) who wanted to air an advert in 2005 entitled My Mate's a Primate. It was directed against the keeping and exhibition of primates in zoos and circuses and their use in television advertising. |
| The brief film juxtaposed images of a girl and a chimpanzee in chains in an animal cage. But the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre refused to clear the advert, drawing attention to the political nature of ADI's objectives, which as such prohibited the broadcasting of the advert under section 321(2) of the Communications Act 2003. | The brief film juxtaposed images of a girl and a chimpanzee in chains in an animal cage. But the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre refused to clear the advert, drawing attention to the political nature of ADI's objectives, which as such prohibited the broadcasting of the advert under section 321(2) of the Communications Act 2003. |
| The animal rights group lost its appeals in both the high court and the House of Lords before taking the case to the ECHR in Strasbourg. | The animal rights group lost its appeals in both the high court and the House of Lords before taking the case to the ECHR in Strasbourg. |
| In a majority decision, the court found that "both parties maintained that they were protecting the democratic process [and] that the reviews of the ban by both parliamentary and judicial bodies had been exacting and pertinent". | In a majority decision, the court found that "both parties maintained that they were protecting the democratic process [and] that the reviews of the ban by both parliamentary and judicial bodies had been exacting and pertinent". |
| The judges pointed out that "the ban only applied to advertising and the applicant NGO had access to alternative media, both broadcast and non-broadcast". | The judges pointed out that "the ban only applied to advertising and the applicant NGO had access to alternative media, both broadcast and non-broadcast". |
| They added that "the lack of European consensus on how to regulate paid political advertising in broadcasting meant that the UK government had more room for manoeuvre when deciding on such matters as restricting public interest debate. | They added that "the lack of European consensus on how to regulate paid political advertising in broadcasting meant that the UK government had more room for manoeuvre when deciding on such matters as restricting public interest debate. |
| "Overall, the court found that the reasons given to justify the ban were convincing and that the ban did not therefore go too far in restricting the right to participate in public debate." | "Overall, the court found that the reasons given to justify the ban were convincing and that the ban did not therefore go too far in restricting the right to participate in public debate." |
| The court ruled that there had been no violation of article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European convention on human rights. | The court ruled that there had been no violation of article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European convention on human rights. |
| Responding to the decision, the culture secretary, Maria Miller, said: "We welcome the fact the European court has upheld the UK's blanket ban on political advertising. | Responding to the decision, the culture secretary, Maria Miller, said: "We welcome the fact the European court has upheld the UK's blanket ban on political advertising. |
| "Political adverts are – and have always been – banned on British TV and radio. That ban has wide support and has helped sustain the balance of views which is at the heart of British broadcasting – and ensures the political views broadcast into our homes are not determined by those with the deepest pockets. | "Political adverts are – and have always been – banned on British TV and radio. That ban has wide support and has helped sustain the balance of views which is at the heart of British broadcasting – and ensures the political views broadcast into our homes are not determined by those with the deepest pockets. |
| "This case was not about the particular views of this organisation, but about the fact the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre considered that broadcasting this advert would breach the ban on political advertising in the UK." | "This case was not about the particular views of this organisation, but about the fact the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre considered that broadcasting this advert would breach the ban on political advertising in the UK." |
| But Jan Creamer, chief executive of Animal Defenders International, said: "This is a profoundly sad day for democracy. It is unjust that companies can advertise without being challenged. This judgment has denied the right of ADI and other similar campaign and advocacy groups to refute advertising claims made by companies." | But Jan Creamer, chief executive of Animal Defenders International, said: "This is a profoundly sad day for democracy. It is unjust that companies can advertise without being challenged. This judgment has denied the right of ADI and other similar campaign and advocacy groups to refute advertising claims made by companies." |
| Tamsin Allen, the solicitor at Bindmans LLP who represented ADI, said: "Entirely and permanently closing off the most important medium of communication to any and all advertised messages about the conduct of public affairs is a harsher constriction of freedom than is necessary in a democratic society. Freedom of expression is based on the assumption that the speakers, not the government, know best what they want to say and how to say it." | Tamsin Allen, the solicitor at Bindmans LLP who represented ADI, said: "Entirely and permanently closing off the most important medium of communication to any and all advertised messages about the conduct of public affairs is a harsher constriction of freedom than is necessary in a democratic society. Freedom of expression is based on the assumption that the speakers, not the government, know best what they want to say and how to say it." |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |